Fritz Vahrenholt 30% Of The IPCC Are Greenpeace & WWF Activists

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come in for repeated criticism of its scientific methods, peer review process and cherry picking of data to reinforce the scam that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

To date there have been 2 books that have exposed the underhand dealings going on at the IPCC Andrew Montfort’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and Donna Laframboise’s recent work “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert“.

Both are excellent books backed by an enormous amount of research, but neither Montford or Lamframboise have actually worked within the IPCC, unlike Fritz Vahrenholt:

In his new book “The Cold Sun. Why the climate catastrophe will not happen,” Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, former environment senator and CEO of RWE Innogy, outlines his thesis that global warming will be significantly less substantial than previously thought. By the end of the century, he believes, there will be just an increase of one degree Celsius. The influence of the sun on the Earth’s climate, however, has been significantly underestimated until now.

Professor Vahrenholt was interviewed by Die Welt on line:

Welt Online: You have supported the IPCC’s paradigm for many years. Now you are publishing a book in which you questioned the doctrine of global climate change. How did this change of heart happen?

Vahrenholt: Yes, I was an active supporter of the CO2 theory. But then I had two pivotal moments that have inspired me to reassess my position.

First, I was invited in February 2010 as a scientific reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy in Washington. There, I realized that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report is littered with errors. At the end, representatives of Greenpeace edited the final version. The result was the nonsensical claim that 80 percent of total world energy needs can be met with renewable energy.

These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too. Of the 34 members of the IPCC Secretariat, the bulk are from the global South – such as Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Until then, I had thought researchers would meet and discuss. No, in fact these are delegates representing nation states – and not always democratic ones. They represent interests and exert influence.

Welt Online: And the second key experience?

Vahrenholt: At RWE Innogy, we were confronted with the fact that the wind and the corresponding power generation were dipping by an appreciable extent. I investigated this phenomenon scientifically and found that it has nothing to do with CO2 and global warming, but that natural climate processes are responsible for it. The activity of the sun plays a major role. I have been working on the subject matter and then worked a year on this book.

Welt Online: You talked about delegates who meet at UN meetings. But scientists in Germany and elsewhere are still mostly convinced that mankind is largely responsible for climate change trough the emission of CO2.

Vahrenholt: But these scientists are not asked what the final report text looks like. They are merely quoted. And there is tremendous pressure on scientists to conform to the mainstream. If you fail to do so, then you will no longer receive any funding or you will be excluded from conferences and talks. This happened to myself. The University of Osnabrück has excluded me from an invited lecture because I have written this book. Dissenting opinions are no longer allowed.

Welt Online: On what scientific basis does your criticism of the majority opinion rest?

Vahrenholt: I am not a climatologist, of course, but I work in the same way as the IPCC. I look at thousands of scientific publications on the topic. In my book I also provide a forum to those whose publications that have been removed by the shortening of the IPCC’s final report. The so-called Core Writing Team of the IPCC, which selects the material according to policy objectives, is made up to 30 percent of people who are affiliated with Greenpeace and the WWF. I had not known that fact previously.

So much for peer reviewed science that the warming alarmists harp on about endlessly, the Glaciergate debacle was caused by an inexperienced and obscure Indian Scientist talking to an activist from a Green NGO.

The IPCC like its parent organisation the UN is corrupt and self serving, there is no real science it’s all a tissue of lies from the 97% of scientists agree porky to all the failed predictions of this or that Apocalyptic event that was going to happen by 2010, then its was 2012, now it’s whatever date they make up next.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled.
http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Interesting that climate deniers quote people like Fritz Vahrenholt who believe man made climate change is occurring but will be “significantly less substantial than previously thought”. For every Vahrenholt there are many who believe that the IPCC is too conservative in its conclusions. But this was the point I made earlier; the real climate debate is the degree to which it is happening and not a grand conspiracy of megalomaniac scientists.

The idea that 30% of IPCC scientists may be Greenpeace or WWF members suggests a paranoia that mirrors the McCarthyism of the 1950s. Has it never crossed your mind that these people may have been members because they cared about the natural world and the planet? Or, has the overwhelming climate change evidence and fear for the future made them politically active?

The idea that scientists will conform to others diktats simply to maintain funding suggests that scientists have no principles, morals or choices. Any scientist who dreamt of a bottomless well of funding need only publish a book criticising climate change and fossil fuel corporations will be falling over themselves to hand him cash. These corporations on the other hand have little in the way of morals and one overriding principle – making profit regardless of the costs to the environment or society. That is why they are only too happy to make sure any form of criticism or doubt in the climate debate is amplified through the press.

The truth is, climate change deniers fall all too easily for the corporate propaganda they so desperately yearn. Your blog is a testament to this fact.

This man is asking that the science be looked at very closely, because as in any endeavor that involves the forced transfer of trillions of dollars from haves to have nots, corruption inevitably follows. The fact that these so-called deniers are not able to get a voice in the scientific courts shows that the system is corrupted, because never in the history of modern science has such hostility to challenge been so vigorous. The vicious suppression of contrary opinion shown by advocates of man caused GW has precedence only equal to that of the clergy and their contemporary scientific community concerning their dogmatic support of the earth being the center of the universe. The intolerance of the expression of minority opinion has no place in science. Lastly, science is not a democracy, where consenus rules. Ethical scientists recognize that only the truth rules. Too often the progress of mankind has been held back by a consenus of scientists.